By what means do people create antinomies to truth according to the authors of this reading? People deal with truth in different ways. Some people when they don’t like the truth they try to avoid it by denying it completely, while the other way is to relate the truth with a cultural reason or a strong belief so they cant argue anymore and they have to accept it.
Antinomy: 1. A contradiction or opposition, especially between two laws or rules 2. A contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem equally reasonable and necessary a paradox.
What point are these authors making? Do you agree? The authors made lots of points that are logic sense and I agree with in many cases. They pointed out that the authority has always been ‘the truth’ and people didn’t have the chance to think of what’s really the truth is, so they had no choice rather than accepting it. They also mentioned how some force people to accept an idea by relating it to culture and religion therefore people have no free to argue about them. And they say that there is two ways of knowing relative and pragmatic. An example of a relative is when someone say "there are no clouds in the sky", this statement can change which makes it relative. While pragmatic is like the nazi's for example saying "political parties with no boundaries are dangerous". .
What point are these authors making? Do you agree? The authors made lots of points that are logic sense and I agree with in many cases. They pointed out that the authority has always been ‘the truth’ and people didn’t have the chance to think of what’s really the truth is, so they had no choice rather than accepting it. They also mentioned how some force people to accept an idea by relating it to culture and religion therefore people have no free to argue about them. This is in fact what they are saying. Please learn to outline their argument more fully when discussing the ideas presented.
You have also not answered the second question posed and due many days ago: NEW: review the "Why Truth Matters" reading - refer to pages 18 to the end. Revisit the question: What point are the authors making in this reading? Do you agree? Explain why or why not. Add to your answer a more complete explanation than what you offered thus far.
Chapter One:
By what means do people create antinomies to truth according to the authors of this reading?
People deal with truth in different ways. Some people when they don’t like the truth they try to avoid it by denying it completely, while the other way is to relate the truth with a cultural reason or a strong belief so they cant argue anymore and they have to accept it.
Antinomy:
1. A contradiction or opposition, especially between two laws or rules
2. A contradiction between principles or conclusions that seem equally reasonable and necessary a paradox.
What point are these authors making? Do you agree?
The authors made lots of points that are logic sense and I agree with in many cases. They pointed out that the authority has always been ‘the truth’ and people didn’t have the chance to think of what’s really the truth is, so they had no choice rather than accepting it. They also mentioned how some force people to accept an idea by relating it to culture and religion therefore people have no free to argue about them. And they say that there is two ways of knowing relative and pragmatic. An example of a relative is when someone say "there are no clouds in the sky", this statement can change which makes it relative. While pragmatic is like the nazi's for example saying "political parties with no boundaries are dangerous". .
What point are these authors making? Do you agree?
The authors made lots of points that are logic sense and I agree with in many cases. They pointed out that the authority has always been ‘the truth’ and people didn’t have the chance to think of what’s really the truth is, so they had no choice rather than accepting it. They also mentioned how some force people to accept an idea by relating it to culture and religion therefore people have no free to argue about them.
This is in fact what they are saying. Please learn to outline their argument more fully when discussing the ideas presented.
You have also not answered the second question posed and due many days ago:
NEW: review the "Why Truth Matters" reading - refer to pages 18 to the end. Revisit the question: What point are the authors making in this reading? Do you agree? Explain why or why not. Add to your answer a more complete explanation than what you offered thus far.